Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: contrib function naming, and upgrade issues

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>
Subject: Re: contrib function naming, and upgrade issues
Date: 2009-03-22 01:49:18
Message-ID: 3299.1237686558@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> writes:
> We've been talking about this magical "proper module facility" for a few 
> releases now... are we still opposed to putting contrib modules in thier own 
> schema?

I'm hesitant to do that when we don't yet have either a design or a
migration plan for the module facility.  We might find we'd shot
ourselves in the foot, or at least complicated the migration situation
unduly.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2009-03-22 01:56:48
Subject: Re: Open 8.4 item list
Previous:From: Robert TreatDate: 2009-03-22 01:34:37
Subject: Re: contrib function naming, and upgrade issues

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group